Evidence of early man found in Israel

[Dan4reason]

Carbon dating is not reliable... :run:

Not 100% reliable, yes.

 

[painted wolf]

Good thing Carbon Dating isn't used for fossils.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Carbon dating is not reliable... :run:

Good thing Carbon Dating isn't used for fossils.

wa:do

That's why they use dendrochronology on fossils.

 

[Nepenthe]

Anyway... As far as the dating issue the fossils were dated based on stratigraphic placement. The teeth have also been X-ray'd and CT scanned.

Here's their chart for the fossil's range of similarity to Homo sapiens: the black circle is the Qesem fossil in contrast to the dentition from Pleistocene Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. The Qesem fossils are kind of in the middle range of variation for Neanderthals and Homo sapiens (both early and recent). In fact the author's state that the fossils are similar to the Skhul and Qafzeh remains. (see here for more Skhul/Qafzeg info': Behavioral inferences from the Skhul/Qafzeh early modern human hand remains)

I'm skeptical of the fossil's age and wouldn't be surprised if their date is a bit of an exaggeration. We'll see...

 

[Caladan]

I'd like to see a lot more info' before I let three permanent mandibular and two deciduous teeth make such a big splash.

The teeth bear several Neanderthal traits and I suspect Paul Mellars is onto something in that this find may be more likely related to Neanderthals. In Hershkovitz and Gopher's defense the paper is tentative as far as these being human teeth. They're understandably excited and expect to see their find confirmed, but they're scientists so they realize the empirical evidence needs a helluva lot of fine toothed combing before anything definitive is set. I am a little wary that they based the date solely on the stratigraphy and dental morphology- I'm waiting for more detailed tests to come.
Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel) - Hershkovitz - 2010 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

This is what me and my fiancee first said when we read it, its a big topic for scarce finds, but then again, we ARE talking about prehistory, usually all we get are scarce finds. also Gopher has been careful in making any dramatic claims and the articles quote them making the point that more verification will definitely need to take place. the BBC video actually shows DR Ran Barkai, in my time in the TAU archaeology university, I somehow managed not to take a single class with Gopher.
btw the Qesem cave, where the finds were discovered is only a few minutes from my home in Israel. some of my friends in the archaeology department have been taking part in the excavations there.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Carbon dating is not reliable... :run:

Not past 50,000 years, no.

 

[outhouse]

i think its 58k-62 to be exact lol

 

[RedOne77]

Not past 50,000 years, no.

Thanks to improving technology it is now around 60,000 years.

 

[connerb]

really amazing that they can rewrite the whole story based on a tooth found in a cave.

 

[outhouse]

really amazing that they can rewrite the whole story based on a tooth found in a cave.

what are you talking about

no one has written anything yet

you have the media blowing it out of porportion or a creationist spouting off with no merit.

 

[gnostic]

This is a very interesting find... especially if the date can be verified.

I'm also wary of claims based on a few teeth.

I'd like to see a lot more info' before I let three permanent mandibular and two deciduous teeth make such a big splash.

The teeth bear several Neanderthal traits and I suspect Paul Mellars is onto something in that this find may be more likely related to Neanderthals. In Hershkovitz and Gopher's defense the paper is tentative as far as these being human teeth. They're understandably excited and expect to see their find confirmed, but they're scientists so they realize the empirical evidence needs a helluva lot of fine toothed combing before anything definitive is set. I am a little wary that they based the date solely on the stratigraphy and dental morphology- I'm waiting for more detailed tests to come.
Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel) - Hershkovitz - 2010 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

Not necessarily.... some paleoanthropologists like to slap the claim of "oldest human" to their finds... and if they don't, the media does.

It's just the nature of the hunt for human ancestors... Lewis Leaky was always claiming to have found the "oldest human".

It's not malicious, it's just over eager. Which is why a lot of researchers and experienced fans of the subject try to keep a level head on such things.

One of the reasons why I don't think some archaeologists are not scientists. Some are to readily to jump to conclusion. It was one of the reasons I posted the thread - Are archaeologists "scientists"?

I am all for new scientific or archaeological discovery, but I would like to archaeologists to be more thorough in their investigation. Wait for their discovery to be verified before announcing to the media.

 

[outhouse]

Agreed

next thing you know we will have creationist screaming nebraska man, all over again.

 

[painted wolf]

One of the reasons why I don't think some archaeologists are not scientists. Some are to readily to jump to conclusion. It was one of the reasons I posted the thread - Are archaeologists "scientists"?

I am all for new scientific or archaeological discovery, but I would like to archaeologists to be more thorough in their investigation. Wait for their discovery to be verified before announcing to the media.

Well, the media loves a fun story and fossils are fun. Some places have more national pride at stake than others as well... When you add politics and archaeology you get problems.

Archeology is more prone to national pride issues than other disciplines. Most countries don't get worked up about who has the best bacteria.

wa:do

 

[TJ73]

:yes:Without a doubt the USA has the very finest and most diverse and the oldest bacteria on the planet!:no:

 

[fantome profane]

:yes:Without a doubt the USA has the very finest and most diverse and the oldest bacteria on the planet!:no:

But Canada has the best tasting.

 

[David M]

One of the reasons why I don't think some archaeologists are not scientists. Some are to readily to jump to conclusion.

If you read what the archeologists actually said you will realise that they ae not jumping to conclusions and want more research and testing, its the media doing the jumping here (as is usually the case).

 

[painted wolf]

If you read what the archeologists actually said you will realise that they ae not jumping to conclusions and want more research and testing, its the media doing the jumping here (as is usually the case).

Oh that wacky media... they are painful when reporting science.

wa:do

 

[Madhuri]

LOL man did not originate in the middle east. Homo sapiens originated out of africa 200,000 years ago.

Different homo species originated in different areas

this discovery will change absolutely nothing about the origins of mankind. It will only add to what is already known.

But if their date is correct, then it does change something. It doubles the date! 400,000 years. To me it seems that this would raise a number of questions about man's origins.

 

[outhouse]

But if their date is correct, then it does change something. It doubles the date! 400,000 years. To me it seems that this would raise a number of questions about man's origins.

I dont think it would.

homo erectus lived for a million years before it went its way. I think allot of teh homo line lived much longer then us.

homo sapiens really havnt been here that long even if it was an extra 200,000 years.

it would possibly add another branch to the out of africa theory except for one small problem. most modern man can be traced by DNA to africa.

I highly suspect its media misinformation or another homo species if the dating is correct

 

[scitsofreaky]

Calr Zimmer has a good article on this paper. A pertinent quote:

Nowhere in this conclusion do the authors say that these teeth belong to Homo sapiens. Nowhere do they say they have just doubled the age of our species. Nowhere do they say that our species evolved in the Near East, not in Africa. There are only some vague hints that the teeth might be “Skhul/Qafzeh-like.” Or they might be something else.

If you read what the archeologists actually said you will realise that they ae not jumping to conclusions and want more research and testing, its the media doing the jumping here (as is usually the case).

Actually, if you read the article I cite, it does seem that it is the authors that are causing all the hype.